You can use Xamarin (C#, F#) for Android though, which will let you go multi-platform in future.
Java Developers
111–120 of 321 posts
Re: Java Developers
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "don't call me, I'll call you" pattern Just call it the Hollywood Principle [1], and ya, it sucks. Databinding frameworks like React go a long way in fixing this (and my own work [2] also). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_principle [2] http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/211297/managedtime.pdf
I really like your work, but not sure that it lies on the right side of the framework/library divide. For example, to realize the full benefits of your approach, you define a new programming language with "no escape hatches". That's the most extreme kind of framework thinking! My favorite post about libraries and frameworks is this one: http://web.archive.org/web/20130810134741/http://an9.org/dev... > Frameworks hurt…
We are not so much defining frameworks as we are new ways of computing. In that sense, it's not really something that will be ready tomorrow (or ever). I do use glitch as a library in C# for UI and compiler programming (hard to program very interactive UI and compilers otherwise), but that is with lots of escape hatches :)
Re: Java Developers
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "don't call me, I'll call you" pattern Just call it the Hollywood Principle [1], and ya, it sucks. Databinding frameworks like React go a long way in fixing this (and my own work [2] also). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_principle [2] http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/211297/managedtime.pdf
I really like your work, but not sure that it lies on the right side of the framework/library divide. For example, to realize the full benefits of your approach, you define a new programming language with "no escape hatches". That's the most extreme kind of framework thinking! My favorite post about libraries and frameworks is this one: http://web.archive.org/web/20130810134741/http://an9.org/dev... > Frameworks hurt…
The point about defining a new language is that the abstraction doesn't leak, whereas frameworks generally leak left right and centre.
Re: Java Developers
#114There is a lot of Cargo Cult programming going on among Java developers. Why using a simple constructor when you can use the factory design pattern? Or why directly instantiating a logger using the "new" statement and the right arguments, when you can also configure it using xml files? Making use of design patterns and frameworks is professional, after all, isn't?
over the years, I developped a fiery hatred of XML configuration files.
and I'm starting to develop a fiery hatred for JSON configuration files. At least XML had standard support for schemas and querying.
Re: Java Developers
#115> The OO craze has a part to play in this madness as well. More and more developers are stepping back and realising that as a programming paradigm, OO is actually pretty shit. Once real systems (like UI frameworks) are written with FP, we can compare apples to apples. Until then...wtf? OO actually works well for scaling complexity, much better than toy immutable functions do. > Even today you’ll still find a strong b…
ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException ... extends IndexOutOfBoundsException extends RuntimeException extends Exception extends Throwable Not exactly an abomination, but I would not call it thing of beauty
Most words exist in fairly deep ontologies also, is English an abomination?
Re: Java Developers
#116well nothing convinces me like unsupported assertions and undirected insults. I now hate java as well.
Re: Java Developers
#117> The OO craze has a part to play in this madness as well. More and more developers are stepping back and realising that as a programming paradigm, OO is actually pretty shit. Once real systems (like UI frameworks) are written with FP, we can compare apples to apples. Until then...wtf? OO actually works well for scaling complexity, much better than toy immutable functions do. > Even today you’ll still find a strong b…
> Once real systems (like UI frameworks) are written with FP, we can compare apples to apples. Until then...wtf? OO actually works well for scaling complexity, much better than toy immutable functions do.
Seems like we are working on very different kinds of systems. Right now I'm working on Hadoop-based data pipeline. While Hadoop itself is mostly written in Java, many recent tools like Spark or Kafka are created in Scala instead. Yes, they still use some kind of OOP where necessary, but it works as a helper tool, not as principal paradigm. At the same time, ideas from FP are used extensively.
Do you consider Hadoop-based systems not "real"?
But ok, let's take something different. Python for example. Python with its main web framework - Django - is really shiny. I would say, it is one of the best web frameworks ever. What about OOP in Django? Controllers are just functions on module level, models are just "poor" records for storing data (no behaviour), ORM is singleton-based. So I would say it's procedural, not object-oriented, at least, not in Java sense. And still sites like Instagram or Washington Post use Django.
Do you consider Instagram not a "real" system?
Ok, maybe it's just web. Java was never good for web, actually. Let's take one another example area, say, scientific computations. Science is something that is really complex, right? Even simple statistical algorithm involves tricky numerical computations, optimization methods, probability models, etc. Matlab is good at these. R is good at these. Python (SciPy) and Julia are good at these. C and Fortran are not very convenient, but fast and thus used extensively. What about Java? Is Parallel Colt best possible choice? Not very impressive. Ok, maybe Matlab, Python, C, etc. are really good only for little experiments and are not really scalable? Hmm, have you ever wondering what software Mars Curiosity is using? It's 2.5 million lines of C code with tests in Python [1]. And nothing about Java or OOP.
So, do you consider Curiosity software not a "real" system?
I'm pretty sure Java is good for some sort of applications. I've heard a lot of good things about using OOP for UIs. But Java is not the only language used for complex systems, and UIs are not the only "real" kind of systems.
[1]: http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/159637/what-i...
Re: Java Developers
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did the two FP courses from Mr. Odersky using Scala as the main language and then continued playing with the language for small experiments. While the language is awesome in general, I would not recommend it at work.
Any particular reason you wouldn't recommend it at work?
[deleted]
Re: Java Developers
#119Interesting read, explains well why I don't like to code in Java anymore. Most Java devs who go too deep in frameworks and complexity should try to build a small project in a very dynamic and concise tech. I always recommend Node.js for that, since you have to selcet the right module for every job, have to think it through and really understand what's going on, and can easily step inside the code if need be.
Re: Java Developers
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really like your work, but not sure that it lies on the right side of the framework/library divide. For example, to realize the full benefits of your approach, you define a new programming language with "no escape hatches". That's the most extreme kind of framework thinking! My favorite post about libraries and frameworks is this one: http://web.archive.org/web/20130810134741/http://an9.org/dev... > Frameworks hurt…
We are not so much defining frameworks as we are new ways of computing. In that sense, it's not really something that will be ready tomorrow (or ever). I do use glitch as a library in C# for UI and compiler programming (hard to program very interactive UI and compilers otherwise), but that is with lots of escape hatches :)
Fair enough :-) Thanks for the pointers!